AZTAG - April 2006 Supplement

 

ON THE TRAIL OF RELIGIOUS ARTIFACTS AND A GRAND OLD MAN

Katia M. PELTEKIAN

With this special supplement, Aztag presents part of the Armenian history to which not much importance is given as that given to the Genocide. The massacres committed by Ottoman Turkey towards the end of the 19th century in Eastern Anatolia and Constantinople were as atrocious as those that were perpetrated against innocent Armenians during World War One. Especially between 1894 and 1896, Armenians suffered massacre and plunder as Ottoman Turkey’s allies in Europe watched. During this period, Armenians presented religious artifacts in gratitude to those European statesmen who tried to help alleviate the suffering of the Armenians. In fact, Armenians living in the British Empire and elsewhere honored a British Prime Minister for defending the Armenian cause whether in the Parliament or at gatherings in different cities around Great Britain. William E. Gladstone was well-known for his speeches demanding that the British government, a staunch ally of the Ottoman Empire, do something to help the Armenians and asking the British people to donate what they could to help the survivors. The chalice and stained-glass window in an old church in Wales are not a new discovery. A few Armenians have surely seen these artifacts that are well-preserved to this day. However, these objects and the reasons they were presented specifically to the church of St. Dieniol have not been given much attention. With this supplement, we hope that similar items, surely existing elsewhere around the world, would be brought to the attention of the Armenians to enrich their knowledge of the tragic history.

 

Buried in the basement of an archives library, I sit at a small cubicle and read on microfilm late 19th century British newspapers. In the darkness, there is only the light of the microfilm-reading machine flashing in my face. Like a slide show, the pages move one after the other as I skim through the page, and try to locate yet another report or a letter describing the suffering of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Persecution and pillage, plunder and outright mass-murder are frequently described by correspondents, travelers and sometimes consuls. Titles read “Massacre in Sassoun”, or those of Urfa, Zeitoun, Van, Egin, Tokat, Constantinople, etc.  Headlines as “The Armenian Question”, and “The Armenian Massacres” are repeated over and over again. And then there is news of a young Armenian girl arrested as spy, or the story of Armenian girls in Turkish harems. The list never stops.

	The silver-gilt chalice presented by a deputation of Armenians from London and Paris to Hawarden Church in 1894. It is used during mass to this day.

Then there are the transcripts of the British House of Lords and House of Commons as lords and members of the parliament raise the question of what Her Majesty’s government is doing to alleviate the sufferings of the Armenians. In most cases, there are no concrete answers from the foreign office. The British government, an ally of the Turkish Empire, was unable to provide answers. In most cases, the Foreign Office would report that a commission was formed or that it was waiting for a report from their consul and which never seemed to arrive.

And as I read column after column of nothing but doom and hopelessness, suffering and horrible massacre in different towns and villages in the Armenian provinces, an interesting article in December 1894 catches my attention. It describes a ceremony which takes place at a church in a town called Hawarden. A deputation of Armenian gentlemen from London and Paris arrive at Hawarden to present a silver-gilt chalice to the parish as a memorial to Mr. William Gladstone’s “sympathy with and assistance to the Armenian people.”

According to the newspapers, the delegation from Paris desired to place in Hawarden Church a silver chalice as a perpetual memorial in recognition of the great life, work, and sympathy of Gladstone, one of the parishioners of Hawarden, whose voice and pen were used in sympathy with the Armenian people in the interests of humanity and justice.

Mr. Gladstone humbly received the chalice thanking the delegation for the beautiful object and gave a speech about the reasons he had shown interest in the Armenian people and their suffering. He went on describing what he called “a state of horrible and indescribable outrage in Armenia.” 

This piece of news becomes even more interesting when a similar item appears in January 1897. This time members of the Council of the Anglo-Armenian Association presented to the same church a stained-glass window commemorating the Armenian martyrs. The presentation was made in “recognition of the very active interest which Mr. Gladstone had taken in the cause of the Armenians.” According to the newspaper, the idea of this memorial originated with a wealthy Armenian living in Russia.

That same day was also the 85th birthday of Mrs. Gladstone, and the delegation presented her with an oil painting depicting His Holiness Meguerditch I, the supreme patriarch of the Armenians. It was painted by M. Theodor Axentolviez, a professor at the Imperial Academy of Art in Krakow. The portrait was a gift to Mrs. Gladstone from the Armenians of India and the Straits Settlements.

For those who read Armenian history, the name Gladstone is well-known. But for many Armenians, it is an unfamiliar name. Simply put, he was the Prime Minister of Great Britain four times during Queen Victoria’s reign.

This is when so many questions came to mind: Why would Armenians from Russia, India, France and England honor this man? What had he done for the Armenians? Why did the Armenians choose Hawarden Church? And more importantly, do the silver chalice and window still exist? Have they survived the 110 years since their presentation to the church?

Then, I started entertaining the idea of visiting Hawarden. But where is Hawarden? Through a quick search on the internet, I located Hawarden as a small town in the north of Wales on the border with England; it is quite a long way from London. But I needed to make sure the window still exists before making the long trip.

An email to Welsh MP Eilian Williams of the Wales-Armenia Solidarity group confirmed that the window exists. Mr. Williams further wrote:

William E. Gladstone

"The 94-96 massacres were much more publicised in the Welsh press than the genocide, and a Wales-Armenia Society existed then. The congregation of my chapel (in a small village in Snowdonia) raised £6 in 1896 to help the Armenians.

It is also interesting that a saying persisted in the Welsh language until recent times: I remember when I was small that if people wanted to describe an evil look on someone they said “ Roedd o yn edrach arnai fel Twrc” (“ He looked at me just like a Turk”). It’s only in the last 20 years that people have stopped using it.  This saying must have its origins in 1896 and the outrage felt across Wales at that time."

My mind was made up: I was going to Hawarden! Last February while visiting London, I went to the train station to buy my ticket, but the ticket-seller had never heard of Hawarden before. I spelled it for him. And on his computer, he found the fastest route to the village: a four-hour trip that also included two train changes.

The first and longest leg of the trip to Liverpool was quite comfortable in a brand new train ran by Virgin Company. The more interesting were the shorter rides to Wales. The second ride took me to a village called Bidstone where I had to wait around 25 minutes for my next train to Hawarden. Bidstone train station was just a few meters long platform in the middle of a field.  It looked abandoned as there was no one, not even a station manager. All I could see were the train tracks cutting through the plains all the way to the horizon. On the other side were a few remote houses in the open fields. Those 25 minutes seemed like 25 hours. And then my ride to Hawarden arrived - a one-wagon old train that looked as if it was not cleaned or washed in the past 10 years. This was turning into a very interesting adventure for me.

I arrived in Hawarden with no map and no address. All I knew was that I needed to go to St. Deiniol’s Church, but I could find no one to help me with directions. I walked up the hill from the station, and met two elderly ladies going into one house. I asked them how I could get a taxi, and they looked strangely at me. One of them simply said, “Love, this is such a small village, I don’t think you’d need a Taxi.” Then they directed me to a few pubs which could be of help to me. And just before I could ask them where St. Dieniol’s Church was, they had disappeared and gone inside.

	St. Deiniol’s Church at Hawarden, Wales    The church was founded in the 6th century by a monk called Deiniol. He came to Hawarden in 547AD after establishing churches along the Dee Valley in Wales. According to tradition, Deiniol planted his preaching cross and prayed in the shade of the tree, and at sunrise, on the line cast by the shadow of the cross, he built his small church.    There is an unsubstantiated claim that a new church, of which a small part only seems to survive was built in 1272. It is recorded as “Ecclia de Haworthin” in 1291. During the following centuries, fire and war had burned and destroyed parts of the Church which underwent several alterations, restorations and repairs.
	The stained-glass window at Hawarden Church depicting St. Bartholomew on the left and St. Gregory the Illuminator on the right. It was designed by Edward Frampton and presented by the Council of the Anglo-Armenian Association to the Church in 1897.

Ok! How wise is it to go to a pub and ask about a church? I don’t know, but no harm in trying. I continued walking and just across what could have been the main road of this small town, I saw a Church steeple, and thought if this is such a small town, they wouldn’t have more than one church, would they? It isn’t strange in Britain that they have about six or seven pubs in this town, but only one church. I walked towards the church, and in the middle of the Welsh greenery, I walked through the gates and was met with old graves that surrounded the church. Some of the graves dated as far back as the 1700s and 1800s.

I turned the knob on the old wooden door and walked into the church. It was quiet. There was no one inside. The stone walls of the church had turned dark with age. The dim lights and the total silence in the church made me shiver for a moment as I sensed a holy presence inside these walls. I made the sign of the cross at the altar, and whispered a short prayer.  I looked around and there were several stained-glass windows all around the church walls. So where is the one the Armenians had donated? I walked around, stopping at each stained-glass window reading the dedications. Most of them were made of the bright colors of red, blue, green and yellow. They were very similar to other stained-glass windows in other English and European churches. Various members of the congregation had dedicated one window or another in memory of beloved ones.

And then I stood in front of about two-meter long window that depicted two figures adorned in ornate attires. The colors were different from the rest. The window was not as bright as the others. The intricate craftsmanship was different from the other windows. Rather than large pieces of colored glass, this had more detailed and minute pieces in shades of olive green, burgundy, brown, earth colors welded together. The details of the faces and the jewels of their crown and robes were unique. I was elated to have found the church window, but at the same time I wished it had not existed: it was a further reminder of the atrocities that befell the Armenians in the late 19th century.

On the left stood the figure of St. Bartholomew and on the right that of St. Gregory the Illuminator. Above the two figures, the following words were printed on the stained glass: “The noble army of martyrs praise Thee”.  At the foot of the window in the stone window sill were carved the following words:

"To the glory of God and in memory of  the  Armenians  in  Turkey who have suffered  for the  faith,  and  in undying  gratitude for the inspiring example of William Ewart Gladstone this window is dedicated by Arakel Zadouroff of Baku, Russia. A.D. 1897"

For about 15 minutes or so, I stood there and stared at the window. It was on the east side of the church, and the sun had already moved to the west. So the window looked dimmer. Still, the light from the outside was enough to illuminate the colors and reveal the details. I took photographs hoping they would also reflect the true beauty of this stained glass.

And what about the silver chalice? It’s there also in the Church at Hawarden. It is a beautifully crafted piece of artifact with intricate engravings on the cup and the stem. Around the cup is an inscription in Armenian written by the Supreme Patriarch.  The chalice is a true reflection of Armenian craftsmanship which has produced hundreds, if not thousands, of religious artifacts throughout centuries.  According to the current churchwarden Fred Snowden, the chalice is used regularly during mass communion to this day.

In 1897, Mr. Gladstone, upon receiving the chalice, gave a speech describing it as “a beautiful article, a beautiful object” which he was holding in his hand. He expressed his gratification that the Armenians had taken notice in such a way as that which he was holding in his hands. He added, “Anything more appropriate, anything more touching, I could hardly conceive.”

Next to the church was the William Gladstone Library which included a small museum dedicated to the great statesman. And in many instances, with the drawings of one of Britain’s greatest Prime Ministers, one would read the captions which included such phrases as “champion of the Armenian Question” and “his last great speech on Armenia”.

 

After taking numerous pictures at the church and its grounds, I walked around Hawarden, went into a couple of the pubs and spoke with some of the residents. It was amazing to find out that some of the residents of this small village knew a little bit of Armenia’s dark history. Perhaps the existence of the chalice and the window had contributed to this knowledge, or the elderly had heard from their parents about Gladstone’s efforts to help the Armenians. And perhaps they were aware of the Armenian tragedy because of the recent debates about the Armenian Genocide in the Welsh National Assembly. Whatever the reason, it was somehow comforting to know that this crime against humanity is not forgotten.

 

Who was Gladstone and

what did he do for the Armenians

William Ewart Gladstone was born in Liverpool in 1809. By 1832, he became a member of parliament in the British House of Commons, and held different posts in the government. In 1839, he married Catherine Glynne of Hawarden in Wales, and took up residence there for the rest of his life.

He became Prime Minister as leader of the Liberal Party for the first time in 1868 and lost the election in 1874. Back as an MP, Gladstone worked diligently for the Bulgarian cause to save Bulgaria from Ottoman rule. In 1880, he became Prime Minister again and served until 1885, but the next year, he was back in the Premiership only to resign a few months later after his Home Rule Bill for Ireland was defeated in the Parliament. In 1892, the Liberals won a majority in the General Election and Gladstone became Prime Minister for the fourth time. Two years later, he resigned but continued to sit as an MP until he finally retired from Parliament in 1894.

Although he resigned from public office, he came out of retirement several times to speak up for humanity and call for action. He mostly advocated the independence of Greece and the rescue of the Armenians from the Ottoman Turks. According to biographers, he gave himself wholly to the cause of the oppressed Armenians.

In 1894 Sultan Abdul Hamid, following his edict against religious freedom, began the execution of his preconceived plan to force all Christian Armenians to become Moslems or to die. The means used by the soldiers were robbery, outrage and murder.

On December 17, 1894 a meeting was held in London during which Gladstone strongly denounced the outrages committed by the Turks. Several days later, on his 85th birthday, an Armenian delegation from London and Paris took the occasion to present a silver-gilt chalice to Hawarden Church as “a memorial of Mr. Gladstone’s sympathy with and assistance to the Armenian people.” Speaking to the deputation, he said that the Turks should go out of Armenia “bag and baggage.” He called the government of Sultan Abdul Hamid a disgrace to Prophet Mohammad, a disgrace to civilization and “a curse to mankind.” He called all the civilized nations to act on behalf of humanity and justice to save the Armenians from the Turkish outrages.

As Turkey continued massacring the Armenians, a meeting was held in Chester on August 6, 1895 to raise public sentiment against the slaughter of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire by Turkish soldiers. According to The Times, the Town Hall was crowded to excess and many hundreds of persons had to be refused admission. Among those present were the Duke and Duchess of Westminster, Mr. & Mrs. Gladstone together with other British notables and clergymen. Also present were delegates from the Anglo-Armenian Association (headed by its president Mr. F.C. Stevenson, MP), the Armenian Relief Committee and the Armenian Association of France (represented by the Chevalier Mihranoff). The Armenians present at this meeting included Arch-Priest Baronian of Manchester, Professor Garo Krakidian, Dr. Kurkjian and several Armenian merchants. The aim of the meeting was to devise some means to put an end to the crimes and to punish the Turkish oppressor.

The Duke of Westminster, presiding over the meeting, read a letter from Mr. James Bryce, MP, founder of the London Armenian Society. In the letter, Bryce had stated that

Lord James Bryce

“The Armenian question was at this present moment in a most critical phase. Not only the existence of the Armenians in Armenia proper, whom it was to be feared the Turks had resolved to exterminate if they were permitted to do so, but the safety of the Christian population over all the Turkish East, was at stake.”

Then the Duke of Westminster continued saying that there could be no more serious and painful question than that of the Armenians, those hundreds of thousands of absolutely helpless and defenseless people. He added:

“It was believed on good authority that a mass of inoffensive and defenseless Christians of the appalling number of 10,000 - men, women, and children - were massacred, in many cases after untold barbarities had been inflicted on them, and by whom? By the so-called police and by the soldiers of the Sultan!”

Afterwards, Gladstone took the podium and delivered one of his most forceful speeches denouncing the Turkish Sultan and the Ottoman Government. His language was not exaggerated as he described the horrible massacres and other crimes inflicted upon the innocent people, quoting from an American eyewitness Dr. Dillon, who had traveled in the devastated lands in disguise and written reports. Gladstone also quoted from accounts witnessed by representatives of England, France and Russia.

Gladstone held the Turkish Government responsible for all the misdeeds inflicted upon the Christian Armenians by employing the Kurds, the Turkish soldiers and the Turkish police. He added:

“And there seems to be a deadly competition among all these classes which shall most prove itself as adept in the horrible and infernal work that is before them. But above them, and more guilty than they, are the higher officers of the Turkish Government.”

Although Mr. Gladstone did not recite the horrible accounts of the eyewitnesses, he did illustrate a few cases in which those plunderers would boast about their crimes asserting that they “shall not be punished for plundering Armenians.” 

Gladstone quoted one such example as recorded by Dr. Dillon. A Kurd by the name of Montigo, who was under death sentence, boasted that the Kurdish tribes attacked villages, killed people, burnt houses, took money, carpets, sheep and women. Montigo confirmed that the Turkish government had disarmed the Armenian population, but had sent out the Sultan’s cavalry, the barbarians and savages from the hills. He said that the Armenians could not fight back because they were unarmed and knew more would come to kill them. According to this Kurdish malefactor, “The Turks hate the Armenians and we do not. We only want money and spoils, and some Kurds also want their lands, but the Turks want their lives.”  This same Kurd affirms that he was sentenced to death not because of what he did to the Armenians. He added that

“If I be hanged it will be for attacking and robbing the Turkish post and violating the wife of a Turkish colonel who is here in Erzeroum, but not for Armenians. Who are they that I should suffer for them?”

During his speech, Mr. Gladstone offered a resolution that he believed the whole of the nation and the British Government would support in order to secure for the Armenians such reforms as would guarantee the safety of life, honor, religion and property. Mr. Gladstone held the Sultan responsible for the massacres and barbarities committed in Sassoun. He summed up the situation in four words: “plunder, murder, rape and torture.”

Then Mr. Gladstone cautioned the British Government and those of the other powers against trusting the promises of the government at Constantinople as he deemed them “absolutely and entirely worthless.”

He ended his speech by ascertaining that what the Turkish Government was doing in Armenia, but not in Armenia exclusively, were founded on “a deliberate determination to exterminate the Christians of that Empire.”

In subsequent letters to similar audiences around Great Britain and Europe, Mr. Gladstone denounced the Sultan for the Armenian massacres and called him the “Great Assassin.” In one such letter to the French Figaro in September 1896, he wrote:

“For more than a year [the Sultan] has triumphed over the diplomacy of the six Powers, they have been laid prostrate at his feet. There is no parallel in history to the humiliation they have patiently borne. He has therefore had every encouragement to continue a course that has been crowned with such success. The impending question seems to be, not whether, but when and where he will proceed to his next murderous exploits. The question for Europe and each Power is whether he shall be permitted to swell by more myriads the tremendous total of his victims.”

In every piece of writing about Mr. Gladstone, there is the mention of his last great speech which was on Armenia. This took place on September 24, 1896 at the Hengler’s Circus Building in Liverpool. The meeting was called after news reached England of the massacre of more than 2,000 Armenians in Constantinople in addition to many more massacres throughout the Turkish Empire.

According to The Times, the doors of the building were thrown open at 9 o’clock - three and a half hours before the arranged time - and very speedily the spacious circus was thronged in every part by an audience of 6,000 people, while thousands remained outside.

The aim of this meeting was to propose and pass the following resolution:

“That this meeting desires to express its indignation and abhorrence at the cruel treatment to which the Armenian Christians are being subjected by their Turkish rulers and at the massacres which have recently taken place in Constantinople, which are a disgrace to the civilization of the 19th century.”

After the resolution was seconded, it was passed unanimously. Mr. Gladstone stepped on the platform amid general applause and cheering. He began his speech clarifying that the resolution and the actions demanded by the British government was not a “crusade against Mahomedanism” since Britain believed the horrible outrages had been perpetrated not by Moslem fanaticism but “by the deliberate policy of a Government.” He continued:

“It is not from the genuine sense of the Turkish people - nay, I would even say it is not from the genuine sense even of the wretched tools and servants of the Government, but it is from the highest summit and from the inmost centre those mischiefs have proceeded. It is there mainly - I doubt if it would be any exaggeration to say it is there only - that the inspiration has been supplied, the policy devised, and the whole series of these proceedings carried on from time to time.”

Mr. Gladstone then recollected the “gigantic” massacres of the past 18 months that were thought to be so extraordinary that it was without a precedent in the past. Unfortunately, he added, those massacres were followed up one after the other and developed into a series. Mr. Gladstone believed that Sultan Abdul Hamid felt so confident about his triumph over the diplomacy of the European Powers that he was bold enough to carry the work of the massacres into the capital under the eyes of foreign Ambassadors.

Mr. Gladstone continued describing the horrible situation in Armenia saying that the atrocities were not confined to murder only. To the atrocities were added the work of “lust, torture, pillage, starvation and every wickedness that men could devise.” He said that what was different between the massacres perpetrated in the Armenian provinces and those in Constantinople was that the latter was displayed in the face of the world under the eyes of the representatives of every Court in Europe, adding insolence to the great crime. Gladstone added:

“Translate the acts of the Sultan into words and they become these, ‘I have tried your patience in distant places; I will try it under your own eyes. I have desolated my provinces; I will now desolate my capital. I have found that your sensitiveness has not been effectually provoked by all that I have heretofore done; I will come nearer to you and see whether … I shall or shall not wake the wrath which has slept so long.’”

Mr. Gladstone blamed the European Powers for failing to punish the Sultan and the Ottoman Government. In fact, he asserted that the Powers had collectively undergone miserable disgrace for not being able to obtain from the Sultan fulfillment of his treaty obligations. In that Europe had been a total failure.

What concerned Gladstone more was that Turkey was still considered an ally who was entitled to claim every diplomatic courtesy by the European Powers. Britain and the rest of Europe maintained diplomatic relations with Turkey although they were unable to prevent the massacre of thousands of Armenians in the streets of Constantinople. In fact, he blamed the British Government even more because of the treaties it had signed with Turkey, yet was not able to stop the massacres. He described the position of Great Britain with regard to Turkey as such:

Sassoun Massacres by Turkish soldiers and Kurdish mob. “Turkey and Armenian Atrocities” Rev. E.M. Bliss, 1896.

“In 1856, by the Treaty of Paris, Turkey gave a solemn promise to introduce into Armenia … effective reforms. She broke that promise. She renewed the promise in 1878 in the Treaty of Berlin. As far as Armenia is concerned, she again absolutely broke that promise. In 1878 another treaty was formed, known by the name of the Anglo-Turkish Convention: and there England endeavored to obtain securities for the fulfillment of the promise by offering compensation. England undertook to defend Turkey in Armenia against unjust aggression from Russia, Turkey undertaking in return to introduce into Armenia reforms … The first two of these treaties constituted obligations by which the other Powers of Europe were bound, in conjunction with us…; but the third was entirely our own…  The Sultan of Turkey has interpreted reforms to mean wholesale and immeasurable massacre; and that is the condition in which … we have placed ourselves in the face of Turkey.”

Therefore, Gladstone proposed it was only just to threaten Turkey with coercion, not war, by first recalling the British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire and then following it with the dismissal of the Turkish Ambassador from London. He believed that once diplomatic ties were severed, there would arise a free opportunity to consider what could be done next. His speech detailed the steps that the British Government should take in order to make Turkey comply with the treaties it had signed regarding the reforms in Armenia. Gladstone demanded that the people of Great Britain would support their government in every effort which it would make by word or deed in order to stop the “most monstrous series of proceedings that has ever been recorded in the dismal and the deplorable history of human crime.”

At the end of his 20-minute speech, Gladstone hoped and believed that “the present deplorable situation [was] not due to the act or default of the Government of this great country.”

The Times in an editorial said: “The spectacle of the veteran statesman quitting his retirement to plead the cause of the oppressed is well-calculated to move the sympathy and admiration of the nation. The ardor of Mr. Gladstone’s feelings on this subject is notorious. All the more striking and significant is the comparative restraint and moderation of the speech.”

Although the speech was well-received by the British public, the rest of Europe were skeptic. On September 27, the Austrian newspaper Fremdenblatt said that Europe did not share Gladstone’s suggestion to withdraw the Ambassadors of the European Powers from Constantinople. It went even further that Gladstone should have “held his peace, as only in the minds of his own blind partisans can there now be any doubt left as to the impossibility of separate intervention in the Armenian Question.” The Austrians believe a more united Europe would be more effective. Another Austrian newspaper Neue Freie Presse doubted that the English would go to war with Turkey. They believed that if the British government adopted Gladstone’s suggestion, England would shut itself out of the concert of Europe.

The Germans showed more animosity towards Gladstone. On September 27 the Cologne Gazette  printed the following: “The English movement in favor of the Armenians has found a mouthpiece in the busy old man Gladstone - a clever reckoner and financial artist, but a confirmed inefficient person in foreign politics… By unchaining the feelings of western humanity against the Turks, England loses nothing, whereas Germany will lose and has nothing to win.” The Hamburger Nachrichten went further in accusing the English of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. It added that the English agitation in favor of the Armenians and against the Sultan is mere pretexts based upon hypocrisy. It went further explaining that without the British political interests, the suffering of the Armenians in Turkey would be less noticeable in “hypocritical England.” The Germans had no interest in the Armenians; in fact Hamburger Nachrichten went on saying: “For us [Germans] the sound bones of a single Pomeranian [German] grenadier are worth more than the lives of 10,000 Armenians.”

And as European Powers went on squabbling with each other regarding their policy regarding the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan and much later the Young Turks continued wiping out Armenians in one village or town after another.

The Liverpool meeting in September 1896 was the last public appearance of this great statesman who defended the weak and the oppressed. Cancer was diagnosed in March 1898, and at the age of 89, he died in Hawarden on May 19th of that same year. He was given a state funeral and buried at Westminster Abbey in London.